On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 11:22:30PM -0400, Jeff Licquia wrote: > On 05/09/2011 05:38 AM, Roger Leigh wrote: > > But all of the existing issues identified by having the separation > > fail to address an even bigger issue: sharing /usr is entirely > > incompatible with a modern package manager, and this has always been > > the case. See: > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/01/msg00152.html > > This is true for (most) Linux distributions, but let's not forget that > the FHS tries to be a standard for UNIX-like filesystems in general, > including systems like the *BSDs, Solaris, etc. > > I'm not saying you're wrong, but we need to be considerate of > "historical" use cases for some of our older cousins, even if those use > cases no longer make sense in the Linux context.
In the case of sharing /usr, I would be interested to know if any BSD or Solaris user did this, and I would be rather surprised if they supported it, because they also suffer from all system configuration being in /etc (with no /usr/etc). Hence they have exactly the same sharing issues as on Linux. I did find one instance of FreeBSD /usr being shared between thin clients. But like the few cases of Linux users doing this, the issue of syncing /etc and keeping files outside /usr up-to-date is unaddressed. So from the distributor's POV, this isn't a supported feature--it's a hack implemented by the end user. In general, I have no problem with the wider scope of the FHS, but in this case I think that a "shared" /usr is really something which should be a historical footnote rather than an accepted practice on any modern system. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
